About this Show

Capital News Today

News/Business. News.

NETWORK

DURATION
03:00:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 100 (651 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
704

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Mr. Wallace 47, Mr. Yates 42, John Chapman 11, Us 11, Mr. Fedorcio 9, James Murdoch 7, Rupert Murdoch 7, John Yates 6, Mr. Coulson 6, David Cameron 5, Neil Wallace 4, Gordon Brown 4, Yates 4, Guardian 3, Mr. Clark 3, Mr. Murdoch 3, Blair 3, Secondly 2, Aloma 2, Fio 2,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    Capital News Today    News/Business. News.  

    July 19, 2011
    11:00 - 1:59am EDT  

11:00pm
and internationally and we already do have some information that has to some conclusion of the investigation i do not. .. >> had the information they chalmette and labor as a private
11:01pm
investigator, conduct and many, many illegals, that used to work for pan aloma, and many before his conviction, as you say. >> do believe he conduct did illegal acts on behalf the "the news of the world"? >> i don't know that. >> what is your belief? >> i don't know. >> you don't know what he did? >> i don't know what he did. >> i find that incredible as chief executive of the company you don't know. >> in may be incredible, it's rehiring by the world i investigations can take pride or aloma. >> did you have any contact with whitmore? >> yes.
11:02pm
he was one of the private detect is, as i said you formed >> i'd like to know what you did. but they do know what you did with it. >> in the main, my use of investigators while i was editor at "the news of the world" was in pursuit, in the main as you know, for the addresses and where god of peter using as investigator myself. i respect that "the news of the world" also use private investigators. >> you are aware that steve whittingdale would do some of the long terms? >> i wasn't aware of that until two weeks ago.
11:03pm
>> you are now? >> yeah, i am. >> what did she do in consolation but steve whitmore? >> i've answered this question many times, they just repeat, a conversion, which is finding a dress from a mobile phone -- that is but a mobile confession is. in fact, during what you are referring to, the "the news of the world" was a business number. >> you can't remember what the story was? what was the store you are working on? >> i read in "the new york times." i think would be unfair to the person concerned because he had been made by the the authority in "the new york times" to what i am saying very few occasions where use private detect to.
11:04pm
>> are you aware of the impact -- did the paper use of their private detect is other than steve whittingdale, john rhys? >> he was the one i was aware of at the time. the first time i heard it said he was arrested in 26. >> is your belief that paper use of private investigators? >> i don't quite remember. you have the same information as they have, which is the operation noted. >> one last question. do you have any regrets? >> well, of course they have regrets. i mean, the idea that many dialers phone access being paid by "the news of the world" or authorized by someone at 79 is
11:05pm
appalling to me and everyone in this room. and it's a regret that the speed in which we have found out or try to find out the investigation has been too slow. i think james whittingdale accepted that and they are endeavoring to company to continue to investigate. but of course there are regret. >> i could try it out and a question for the session, which is the culture of login and private sectors within the industry and to what extent "the news of the world" felt justified in it practices because everybody is doing it. i couldn't think that piers morgan on cnn that openly in his work that he just published
11:06pm
before the whole controversy broke, 38 thousand, said he went erickson. he also gave a tutorial of how one access was mailed a crunching the numbers and clearly from the account that he did it routinely as the daily mirror in unpaid that was not at news international. you talk about the operations in a different amount with steve whitmore and i added them up. for transaction in the newspaper group, there were 1387 train faction with mr. whitmore used by 98 journalists. is it not obviously the case of
11:07pm
logging, hacking, dsa private investigators for illicit purposes wasn't actually a culture in the news of the world participated with the sense of entitlement -- the same entitlement in this book because everybody else is doing it. is that not the case? >> we thought a lot over the last -- well, 10 years. i particularly the committee held an inquiry to which is incredibly extensive with this committee and as far as i was concerned, that failing up on newspapers and not understanding the extent of the use of private investigators which was held to account then. they're in many changes because
11:08pm
of operations most meant to be to the data protection act. and then i said the authority of the observer is far better than mine, but they had a very good editorial in this about three months ago with addressing -- again, readdress the impact climate then and how different it is now. >> in 2003, there were despicable practices across the media, including payment. i appreciate the sensitivity. in your evidence in 2003, you were asked with paid the police in the past. the manner in which you have said that almost as though the implementation as do all tabloid
11:09pm
newspapers. for your general knowledge, what is widespread across the industry to which they could find internationally? >> is your member, you can take it in 2003 was actually going on to explain my comment and as you know, mr. brandt was asking to explain and the actual session ended. in 2003 chemistry after my comment. i think subs dixie was the chairman at the 2007 inquiry clarified again and i clarified it recently to the affairs committee at the end of march 18. now, i can say that i have never paid a plea for myself. i've never sanctioned to a police officer. i was referring if he thought at the time of the select committee
11:10pm
recently and you've tried various cry at a different fleet street discussing in the past payments had been made for a police evidence. not why sidetrack us. the information comes free of charge. >> in the parliamentary committee yesterday started at they have never published a story on hacking are blogging, this time a group that operations have a genocide a 1387 transactions across. do you think it is credible that all those transactions were illicitly at tamed? or that is why the cultural
11:11pm
blogging? >> i didn't take it as evidence. you are seeing the evidence of all the media group in the country they news international has locally opened the presidential inquiry. i mean, we haven't got them yet. the fact is i'm not curate and the position to comment on the newspaper groups. like i said at the beginning, said that the force that night and we are doing our best not to force it out. and i expect this is not the speed the committee would wish in the states have been made, but we are trying to make it right. i think the operation that is most important to expect inquiry and it is properly right that they come back from journalists and the ethics of journalism are in constant review.
11:12pm
because if they're not, that freedom does press enjoys, which i believe in very strongly if there is not constant review of contacts, then they are dressed. >> one final question. your committee did taste great evidence -- great emphasis in refusing to defend impervious less than best part is the panel of these investigations have been identified as operations. in other words, whatever happened at "the news of the world" was part of the wider culture. i just want to see that if you seem to know or implied these practices were going out the door, how could you not be the news of the world and do you not regret that you did not yourself some branch investigations into the world, rather than the same strip out. >> i think just going back to
11:13pm
2003. the fact is the one reason branched that this committee at the results of the committee offices reporting to the fundamental change across newspapers and particularly, like i said, i was editor at the sun and i can say absolutely that the sun is a clean ship of newsroom and the operation mostly referred to in some part of it. >> thank you. >> thanks, chap. one evidence -- in such clearly the responsibility of the news
11:14pm
that one believed the management over, which i assume would include you. >> i think i may have missed that part of the evidence, but i think mr. murdoch said it's exactly how it was, but what they collect a decision we all talk together and mr. murdoch was at the time a conference that we all put together. ideal mac >> i'm sorry, rupert murdoch. >> when you're inviting your staff during the private session, there was more to come. could you explain what she meant by that. >> when i went down to the newsroom to explain the decision, clearly and quite
11:15pm
rightly the gentleman at "the news of the world" who it then putting out a newspaper under this scrutiny for a long time with great excuses and great pride in their newspaper was very sad and baffled by management decisions to close the paper. but i was saying to them is right now you may not be able to write in this moment understand why we've done it, but as a month -- and i think i said in a years time a yankee will come to the realization that we actually did the right thing. unfortunately, the news of the world used to lead the headlines to the right reasons with cricket. for the last few months has been made in the headlines for the wrong reason.
11:16pm
>> that was the right decision for the 100 journalists were testing ron, many of whom have spent years at the new world and we have endeavored that every single one of them will be offered a job. >> i expect that. the secretaries and engineers, they all expect the same jobs. >> not just a news international, but for corporations. >> well, as i've said, part of the problem with this story is the lack of credibility of the documentation in 2006. we have no visibility on edge. you have no visibility on edge.
11:17pm
and they are conduct deemed a new inquiry and i'm sure that will go through the thousands and thousands of documents and i think we will, in a years time, maybe actually get to the final position on what exactly have been. >> can i ask you a couple questions that james murdoch during the course of last year shared the trial gives evidence on two occasions as e-mails with "the news of the world" and surveillance that phone hacking could not retrieve to some black: mumbai. that is not the case.
11:18pm
>> i think what actually happened, which you are referring to is an issue we had with our suppliers. and i think i am correct in thinking the information commissioner has actually put out a clarification to that and explained that there was no issue and they were entirely comfortable with the international response to that. [inaudible] >> i don't know. >> you still have not received the regime's e-mails? the e-mails have since been retrieved. any reason why? >> i think i've should the clarifications and commissioner was the fact that what had happened and the editor of the scottish news that the world had made a comment during the trial, which had been interpreted as you are saying now. but actually the international explanation was actually a problem with our suppliers in
11:19pm
india. there was no such retrieval. >> were there any contacts during this? >> i think andy was on downing street during the shared in case. [inaudible] >> i said i wouldn't have had contact. it would have been mainly to do with were, by e-mail or by phone. >> just a couple more questions. why would it a legal fees during the shared in case? >> as i understand, i know james murdoch addresses.
11:20pm
when amd coulson last "the news of the world," on matters related to the legal fees are paid and i think the same for clive goodman. i think it was when she was a co-dependent in these cases. >> okay, are you aware of any payment they haven't brought forth? >> note. no. >> thank you, chairman. i'd like to ask about iraq. during the period of production. i've got some specific questions, but could you just paint a picture of this is how he goes about reporting on such a good story, with the level of editors and dingell reports
11:21pm
would be and have you seen a story like that? >> i think it's any big story start out with a reporter and i would report bbb announced by the investigative jury where they may have brought information about the right context of the news editor. it is at that stage of the newspaper where the reporter knew the variety of information go out and check the allegation and come back. you can imagine every news aper gets a lot of information and only a percentage come a very small percentage make a vacation. are many layers who are consistent news editor to news editor. finally the story will coach the back bench, which will be the people that will oversee that story and we often talk to the reporter directly with questions and amendments to accompany the
11:22pm
lawyer involved at this stage throughout the process and then finally the final publication will be made by the editor and how prominent it was. and obviously, it's a terrible news story. and it would've been covered covered by on newspapers and for a very long time the trial had been finished. >> for something like this, would it have been better to expect that it was the editor on duty that the lawyers would sign up for and anything because of the incredible sensitivity of material? >> that is probably true, yes. on any story, particularly as you say, the lawyers to be heavily involved in talking to reporters and news editors are
11:23pm
the executives on the to read the information came from or what was the veracity of the information. >> how involved were you personally within israel? >> essays date, the story ran for a very, very long time. so i will have been involved in the story over the many years. i mean, even when i was editor at "the sun," the investigation has been in the news for many, many years. nine years. >> particularly i hear it say. which you saved the many cases you are more heavily involved with the other stories with the magnitude in the event of the real shock and horror of what had happened. >> not particularly more or less
11:24pm
of votes. the one thing i would say is that we have had these series of terrible and tragic news stories with sir payne and the subsequent merger and of course the case says and does you no part of a main focus of my editorship at "the news of the world" was then convincing parliament that there needs to be radical in many 296, which was under megan's law. so i thought if i had a particular extra involvement in any of those stories that i was trying to push a campaign for the readers write on the issue -- on the 10 pieces of
11:25pm
legislation with god through for those to be put forward. >> in 2003 you have an example of how you type the police and the family and gave evidence that the one that they. and did you have -- did you speak the evidence that particular knowledge in the case. >> first in 2003 i was unaware of what i now know. however, in 2003 as far as science is turned, which may sound in light of what we believe the allegations done that i found quite frankly ridiculous, which at the time i believe in the stone cases the huge portion for example was
11:26pm
sent to go to referring to fleet street had come together and is paid to it to restart the privacy of the family. clearly these allegations came out two weeks ago, if true, are appalling. >> and do what you say in the context of what we now know, it is ridiculous, to use your word. when were you first away or? >> i think it was last monday. no, maybe the monday before. >> i heard of it when the story first broke in the media i think on monday evening. >> that being said, "the news of the world" has suggested they
11:27pm
have had been carried out terrazzo rise. and when were you aware that people at "the news of the world" gave information to support their litigation? v-neck at the moment again i want to be slightly -- i'm going to have to be slightly tableau, but i want to be responsible. we saw the story at the same time. my aunt that reaction, like everybody else was one of shock and disgust, that a family who suffers so much already -- that these allegations though he clearly acted immeasurably to the suffering. the first thing i was to write a full apology to say would get to the bottom of the allegations in that anyone can either represent and sub nine, which i still find
11:28pm
staggering to believe. but if we find out that is true, i have every confidence that news international and the police will get to the bottom of that and they should. >> i appreciate your statement there. but what i last was about when you aware that information was passed to the police that resulted from hacking. i understand you weren't aware. if it is the case that employees of "the news of the world" were sanctioned since he reduced his e-mail me back in the withheld that information from you and and i did have their own position to pass the information on to the police. that is what you're asking us to believe? and my writing may not?
11:29pm
if the information was received -- if information held by employees at "the news of the world" related to the hacking was further investigation, you said the first they knew about that was on -- when it is newspapers. what i'm saying is they must be the case that someone come without your knowledge, and employees of yours at "the news of the world" decided without contacting the editor to pass it on. is that the case? that the chain of events? >> i think if i understand the question, i think it's important to say obviously the stories went for many years and i had been added or have both "the news of the world" and assigned while the investigation was ongoing. what i thought you're referring
11:30pm
to ways, when did i first hear an allegation that the mini dialer phones or voicemails had been did a people working for "the news of the world" or someone at "the news of the world" and the first time i ever heard that was two weeks ago. but we've gone to the police. >> i wrote to the police immediately. may 1st was to send the family and unreserved apology on behalf of news international and to assure them that we would get to the bottom of that, representatives and lawyer almost immediately to get for more information to see if there is anything we could do, look for it or assist in this case. and that anything i did was right to the police to say that obviously in the last nine years, if they had come across any information that supported
11:31pm
these allegations, that they please either give it to the inquiry or share it with the management committee. i had a response from several police at the end of last week, which is that because it was part of a criminal investigation they couldn't help me. >> the point that i'm getting is that it seemed it's getting to less than incredible lash, potentially, allegedly someone at "the news of the world" would take a decision for themselves to pass information on to the police however obtained with the results of a newspaper investigation and that they didn't consult the editor or any members. that seems incredible. >> your allegation is that -- your allegation is someone at "the news of the world" knew that they had themselves or had
11:32pm
authorized someone's to access the voicemails and they then told the police the information. >> what we are saying is the events that have the hacking of the events at "the news of the world" to the passing to the police of information regarding the deleting of the messages is what i was asking about. >> on the allocation, someone authorized from "the news of the world" had access to voicemails of minutes via the and one that opposes all and that is being investigated now. and when i first heard of it.
11:33pm
>> it just seems like you've are so unaware of such fundamental issues. as the investigation. >> in some ways i don't know anymore -- anyone in the right mind to it authorized, sanctioned, approved the anyone listening to the voice mails. i just don't know anyone here who would think it is the right and proper thing to do at this time or anytime. i know we know a lot more now, but all i can tell you. >> this is potentially something that happened under your watch. if it is truth in to be the case can we do take personal responsibility for what happened at the newspaper? >> well, it would take responsibility, absolutely. i really, really do want to find out what happened.
11:34pm
i think all of us do because after everything that i've heard of this case, i think that was probably the no shocking thing i heard for a long time and certainly the most shocking thing i heard about journeys at the international. >> i still have tons of questions. by 2001 when i was elected that was covered by months. there is no public issue listed in the directory of mobile phone numbers. converting both numbers to
11:35pm
address these should put the number on the instances or otherwise deprived investigator had secured it from a mobile phone company, you have to have a public interest for doing so. if you are challenged. >> like i said, many people disagreed with the campaign, but i felt that sir saw and those 1997 that needed to be changed to the public was absolutely in the public's interest. however, in that particular case -- i only remember to when i was represented with it. in that particular case, i know that at the time the private divots around sir slough. >> mobile antifur seven help either commissioner or the
11:36pm
secretary within the department? >> i can only assume it was. but as this person has been named and interviewed extensively now by the media and has said quite openly that he is not guilty of any wrongdoing and can't understand why any of us are looking at the time and i have to accept that. i think that the equator lead to publication about them. at the time we use private detectives in order to track down -- >> said he would've had a public interest on a no questions asked basis quite >> absolutely not. even to the observer at the time. but it wasn't in 2001, that they used private type this.
11:37pm
i mean, it wasn't the new practice that the observer in 2001. and in your time at the observer private detectives used and ensure you, like i., but they were clearly the select committee inquiry and the subsequent conclusions of that was the governor's private type as were found to be watching in the industry on the back of the committee's inquiry change their ways. >> we go through the connection with the arrest and conviction. we have been paddling both of them. secondly, macau was up iliac is
11:38pm
ended as not to make any link between two activities -- his activities in the source of activities going on. they are comprehensively demolished. >> if you remember at the time, when they were arrested in 2006, it was the belief of the international command the basis it was the belief of the police they would be thoroughly investigating this. in fact, previous to the arrests they have been investigating the situation in order to make the arrest. and so, i mean, and understand why you're using the language, but that was the reality. we were told in the trial in
11:39pm
2007 in glenn mulcaire's pre-disclosure and sentencing they categorically didn't start accessing voice mails until 2004. that is what is said and that's what he told the trial. after 2007, the committee hearing data connected internal investigation you covered extensively in the previous session and the police closed the inquiry. and from my own knowledge in 2006, because as everyone knows now, my own mail was accessed by glenn mulcaire and my voicemails by glenn mulcaire and at the same knowledge of roanoke to good and whether you can say the myth now clearly we have now
11:40pm
seen evidence that that is not the case. but it wasn't a myth. >> thinks to it leaves a good description of the paper was left in the office, we've had a count or "the sunday times" in the last few days that there were a number of gatekeepers on the new status with your time and the names were thoughts friendship, clive goodman, james winthrop and so many times it was accurate. and yet, we're still being asked to believe that you'd be added very simply didn't know what he was up to. >> what, i can't comment on what others knew and when they knew it and how they do it.
11:41pm
i can only tell what i knew while i was at "the news of the world" and editor of "the sun." as chief executive, i can account for my actions and to the bottom of this story. in 2006, for my own personal point of view, i was the editor at "the sun" and was approached by the police to explain actions unmanned always mails and it reported that back to become print any subsequent investigations they just been a chief executive. in 2009, that's when i started to pick up much more responsibility of how we act did engage the bottom of this story. >> can i just move on? when we told the story which was the straw that broke the camels back, your company, on your
11:42pm
behalf was very quick distance to you from being on the premises at the time that particular story was run but they set in the newspapers that you were on holiday at the time. is that the case? >> it slightly irrelevant where he plays. as editor at "the news of the world" i didn't know it was happening. >> it's not irrelevant. it's being reported. >> there were no statements about me being of the time. >> if you do the clips defend the source of the company. >> this is the state where we did protect the statement. i was away for the stories they are talking about, but that is irrelevant. i was the editor of the paper and therefore all tonelli it
11:43pm
happened on my watch. >> what about the newspaper when you're way -- who is the deputy? >> i had deputy andy coulson. i don't absolutely know. >> i don't want to take too long. he saw the exchanges of this sheet of paper that was found with signing the offices that we received previously about the result of the e-mails. clearly that was still sitting there when you became the chief executive in 2009, so it was all commission before. james murdoch said he first heard about it in april or may
11:44pm
and then was placed back in june. when did you first learn the evidence as they are quite >> just james murdoch did. >> to the report to thank you? >> actually what happened, as you know, we had this management committee that we set out after the place we open reopened their investigation in january 2011. obviously, it was their investigation that led to the up name of that inquiry and the information we handed over to the police then opened it was subsequently set at the management committee in order to facilitate the police with any information they requested a rainy day and we proactively declined to help them. as part of the disclosure in this part of the references made to the internal investigation into the home of cleanliness, the police asked and the
11:45pm
management standards committee we went off to look for it and we been found at and i think as james murdoch said they took counsel about it and handed it over on june 20th. >> right, okay. now, this didn't involve international people, people who reported u.s. chief executives. in particular, john chapman. can you remember what conversations you had with john chapman after this evidence came to light? we've heard for a rupert murdoch at john chapman sat under fire for years. >> the original inquiry in 2007 i believe was struck did -- >> yes, we know. i'm talking about when the
11:46pm
evidence came to light your committee, did you have any -- john chapman at his international, legal director reports to you, can you member of conversations you had? >> obviously we discussed it. as soon as it came to light, think of is that the end of the book that i was told about it, that mr. chapman was asked and took knowledge of it, why it hadn't come to light before and the management standards committee. >> was his response to you legs >> his response at the time was that he was to do an investigation into your voicemails that he fell -- he felt that the recommendation, which was the letter you have got.
11:47pm
he felt that the latter firm lewis was inaccurate review of the file. that is something you had today that neither james murdoch or i thought it was a closer examination. >> to clearly get the issue or the letters that are misleading to sit on evidence. >> carbolic and louis berger respect date. i'm not asking about john chapman who reported you. >> to the cake the decision not to sell anything? >> you asked me if john chapman
11:48pm
had asked -- >> no, he asked you what he said to you. >> yes, but she also said committee john chapman ask carbolic and louis to write a misleading letter? and my response to that less than whispery sleep at harvard and louis were respect to then ensure that would be the case and john chapman had been at their respective lawyer at the international for many years been insured absolutely not done that. in light of what we know now, when i had the management committee pulled out fio, we felt that i felt from our perspective putting your life on the information that we had in the past. >> i do not set question, but it would be very good question to ask, so thank you.
11:49pm
by the john chapman leaves? >> as you heard in the previous session that john chapman wanted to leave and we felt that under the circumstances that that was the right course of action. >> okay, because john chapman learned in the end. >> i think at the time that john chapman, who is a corporate lawyer and daniel cloak who was head of h.r., i think they would say if called to this committee that in their experience and their knowledge, whenever that the fio, they felt at the hard rock and louis letter was correct. >> a couple final questions. one thing that struck many people as those fans across
11:50pm
fleet street after seeing her newspapers, the npt and "the new york times" and the coverage of this affair. can you remember calling the editor's office regarding the story in 2005 to discuss how they might cover or not cover the story and order to downplay the coverage? >> in 2005? >> in 2009. do remember calling renter editors that hawbaker hayek's to not get the story. >> i don't remember calling him about it, but he and i would talk about industry matters on occasion. i only knew what i'd read on on the guardian. >> the final question coming to recall a conversation with boris johnson doing when he asks you
11:51pm
and your response was for alan to go down and beg you for forgiveness. you remember that discussion? >> absolutely not. >> thank you. >> i have to see my colleague asked you about this earlier, but in his intervention in the house, you referred to the fact that part of the news of -- "the news of the world" suggested that they left a message after a 13-year-old finished on march 21st of march 27 went missing and the agency appears to have turned mobile. given the importance of the lily
11:52pm
dowler story, but could you ask a question? >> as i said, the most important thing i think in the case as we get to these allegations quickly and i find that those who were comfortable of that were also the correct justice to the legal system. so i am very mindful of what i know in the criminal investigation. the fact is and i can only keep saying this, is the suggestion that the voicemails or intercept did by someone at 79 or someone on news that the road was then
11:53pm
known to me and that's all i can tell you. >> i expect that. just trying to understand the fact there was a specific reference in this worry. i'm just surprised that if you'd like to ask more questions and i fully accept. >> just accept that nine years ago when the story was around, i am told another story you are referring to that edition. i am sure questions were asked about where that information came from. they would've been after the reporter or they would have been after them the newsletter check them come the lawyer would've checked them and they would've been a a process around every story on the front page. it would've been some process to run for the information came from. and i can tell you now it would
11:54pm
not be the case that some was head yes, that came from an illegal voicemail intersection. it seems now that it's inconceivable that people didn't know this was the case. but at the time, it wasn't a case that was sanctioned at "the news of the world" under my leadership. that's all i can tell you. >> mr. watt and also went on to say talking about you were in the presence of the murder investigation in providing you with evidence for your newspaper particularly mentions the name of another senior executives, alex -- partly fusing the police officer and his wife. can you tell us more about what
11:55pm
that means? >> i can tell you something about it. i was also recalling a meeting in 2002. i was soft reset the pay channel for about the story you are referring to in my recollection of the meeting with entirely different. my recollection of the meeting was on a completely different subject. so i'm only going on what i was told by channel four. they said the meeting in november but that was what was put to me. it checked my diary snatches possible and there's no meeting in november. however, the book was subject with me saying very early january. so it may be at that meeting. that was not my recollection of the meeting. but on the other hand, because
11:56pm
of the campaign, i did have some pretty regular meetings. >> thank you. rupert murdoch said someone who he would trust his life. who would you trust? >> well, newsroom and in a newspaper is based on trust. if you think about the way in which the story is getting published, you rely on the people that work for you to behave in a proper manner and you rely on clarity of information that you are given at the time. but that is why it can be so absolute with the committee today that the interception of the voicemail from my own personal view. again, not counting on what you do at the time. so when you say, the whole news
11:57pm
room in the whole base of the newsroom is based on trust. for example, my political editor at "the sun" came to me with the story. i knew it to be true. i didn't need to ask which cabinet minister had the story. i just know to be true because there was was standing the experiences of journalists. again, i say that based on trust. that is how it works. >> you talked about the million-dollar situation. who else from what you now know do you think people are likely to be prompt? >> well again -- >> i just think i would be split the -- none of us here should be
11:58pm
judged in jerry. >> who knows what you now know, but she still work at news international or were employed in last month. it seems there's another team pulled together could you say has done not? >> the process at the criminal investigation started when we handed over documentation that we have found. all that documentation has been shared with the management and standards committee that james and rupert murdoch referred to directly as the corporation and independent news international for that particular region. obviously the legal team knows about it and also the police are aware of everything that we're aware. >> just to clarify, how was anyone previously giving
11:59pm
evidence, people like colin milo >> actually probably not, no. the management and standards committee was concerned with management for chief executive on my current executive would know about it. >> final question for me would be, do you have any regrets about the headlines of yourself in being subject to the media spotlight? ..
12:00am
it all the people working for the news international. i felt i was distracted from their incredibly good work, but you know, we have a very robust and diverse press in this country covering all spectrums and all opinions, and i think the freedom of that should be ensured for the parliament. >> thank you. how many times would you speak to rupert murdoch?
12:01am
>> i would speak to mr. murdoch and james murdoch on the chief executive than i did. >> james murdoch and i have offices next to each other and because of his wide responsibilities and when i looked out to rupert murdoch quite regularly. >> once a day, twice a day, just really -- >> on average every of the day but pretty regularly. >> you said everyone at news of the world was working hard to get them a job, and actually is honorable why is that not tom crone? you said the reason he left the appointment was the joe lalinde to -- jobs no longer existed.
12:02am
so if you try to find a job for everybody why was tom crone -- why would you not find a job for him? >> there were some people that didn't want a job and in the case of tom crone, his title was news international manager and as mr. chariton pointed out it wasn't just journalists and was the secretary as many people in the news of the world. in the case of, as i explained, he predominantly for the last few years had worked as the legal manager for the news of the world and in fact the worker's legal teams. that was the situation of tom. >> can i just ask about mevel? did you know that when you were at news of the world did you know that he was somebody that
12:03am
wasn't a new form to the police. >> is that true? >> in the evening standard they quoted -- they've quote to the reports dating back to 2000 when he set himself after a case that the police were impressed with of the time of and the judge said it was a substantial volume useful to the police. it says also the source is the closest and this is a quote, people read the top of news international were aware of his wrong with the police. >> i was not aware he was a police informant. >> that comes as a shock? >> i'm not even sure what it means particularly. i mean, if you are asking me
12:04am
about deutsch members of the press and members of the police force have a symbiotic relationship of exchanging information for public interest, then they do. but i'm not quite sure where the word police informant means. >> welcome the allegation is that he passed a substantial volume of information to the scotland yard, and in return, he received dozens of items of confidential and for action from the police and that is the obligation. >> most journalists who work for the crime editor or half a working relationship and their particular police force. >> when our report was published in early 2010 was when you were chief executive of news international, and there were certain things we're obviously
12:05am
we found that the evidence from the people from the news international was unsatisfactory and collecting in nisha we refer to in the reports and we felt it was inconceivable that he was a reporter as passed on to that we refer to the e-mail and all that kind of stuff. when you were the chief executive of news international at the time that report was published did you read the report we published? >> yes, i did. i'm not saying i read every word but a large majority. i read the criticisms that were addressed to the company, and i can only hope that from the evidence that you heard from us today that we have really stepped up our investigation and that, you know, rupert and james murdoch have been very honest
12:06am
and open with usa kennedy and despite the fact that there were some legal issues and around i hope you think that when we saw the civil disclosure in november, 2010 we acted swiftly and promptly to deal with it. the police investigation would not be open now. there wouldn't be an inquiry if it hadn't been for the information that news international handed over. and i'm not saying that we haven't made mistakes, but the metropolitan police have repeatedly said come as you heard last week -- the committee heard last week, who repeatedly said that there was no need for further reading investigation. so i think that everyone involved in 2007 would say no, that the mistakes were made, but i hope you feel we have responded appropriately and
12:07am
responsibly since we sold the information in 2010. >> when you read the report did that make you think how long have you had this? there are some things here that don't stack up. we might not have evidence, i might not know of these people, but this is clearly something that isn't quite right here. did that prompt anything on your part is the chief executive international to say let's go back over this and there's something not right here. >> everyone at news international has great respect for the parliament and for this committee command of course to be criticized by a your report was something that we responded to. we looked at its but it was only when we get the information in november, to 2010. but you heard today from rupert murdoch who said that this was the most humble day. we come before this committee to
12:08am
try to explain openly and honestly what happened. and of course we were very unhappy with the criticisms this committee found. we aspire daily to have a great company and a tour criticisms were felt. >> can you tell us how often you either spoke to or met with various prime ministers of those meetings you've been in, any sort of news of the world with the chief executive of news international. how often would you speak to or meet tony blair, gordon brown and david cameron respectively? >> ghosh. well, on the premise turkoman david cameron, we ferc met -- i read the other day we met 26 times. i don't know if that is absolutely correct. i can do my best to come back to you on any expect number.
12:09am
i'm sure it is correct that is the primm ministers saying. i have never been to downing street where where he has been prime minister, yet under prime minister gordon brown and 20 blair i did regularly go to downing street. >> well, on a prime minister gordon brown, in the time that he was in downing street, and while he was -- and also while he was chancellor, i would have gone maybe six times a year. >> and tony blair? >> probably similar. media in the last few years and a little more, but i mean if you want the exhort numbers i can do my best to get that. but strangely it was under the labour prime minister's i was a regular visitor to downing street and wasn't the current. >> do you think that there was a
12:10am
change of emphasis when you were on the song or chief executive news international in that always struck me on the news of the world particularly has been a sort of anti-establishment kind of publication. a little ways seem to me the sort of on this side of the little person fighting the establishment. would you say that when you became, in your relationship with those prime ministers that there was a shift and actually the news international became a part of the establishment as opposed to being anti-establishment. >> considering the amount of complaints are used to get from both pre-ministers and about the coverage, i would think that they would say that that is not the case. throughout, as you know, one of the mean campaigns that we have had is for health the heros and i think the sun is the paper for the military and that caused us
12:11am
to have a very uncomfortable conversations particularly with the prime minister gordon brown. one of the issues that is still apparent today as it was back then is a lack of awareness of of their aspects of the media and of parliament to acknowledge currently we have soldiers fighting in afghanistan and war and people don't seem to forget that, so i would not say any primm minister would think the sun was and fighting for the right people. they continue to fight for the right people. >> how often would those primm investors ask you as a chief executive how wasden, or would they ever ask you not to publish a story? what they sort of ask you to spike the story? with that happen? >> i can't remember an occasion where a prime minister asked.
12:12am
>> politicians generally, is that something that would happen? >> nope. i would say i can remember many occasions when the cabinet member, politician or prime minister was very happy with of the stories we were running but not that they had ever pleaded directly. >> and if they had you wouldn't had been interested in a way. >> as long as the story was true and accurate it was part of the campaign know, there was no reason for prime minister. that is exactly why we have a free press. >> my final question, there's a sort of i think feeling that in some way you had a close relationship with the prime minister and i think the allegation goes it seems to me it's no different than your relation with prime minister blair. for me what people have received you have a close relationship
12:13am
with prime minister that was helpful to him and news international politically. but then what news corporation would hope for would in some way grease the wheels for the takeover. was any of that sort part of the wide strategy of news corporation you encouraged to get closer to the prime minister's with that in mind? >> no, not at all. - ret many allegations about my current relationship with the prime minister, david cameron, including my extensive horse riding with him every weekend. i've never been horse riding with the prime minister. i don't know where that story came from. i was asked three days ago for the press minister which i do
12:14am
not and i was asked a week ago to explain why i owned some land with the prime minister. in this current climate many of the allegations putting forward i'm trying to answer honestly but there is a lot out there that just isn't true in particular around the subject of my relationship with david cameron the truth is he is a neighbor and friend but i deem their relationship to be wholly inappropriate and at no time have i ever had any conversation with the prime minister you in their room but disapprove of. >> in newspaper reporter the other day at finest david cameron on who took a press
12:15am
spokesman and it was suggested it should be. >> i was aware of that. >> what was your reaction to that story? >> i think it's a matter of public knowledge that it was george austal and the chancellor's idea that when indy 500 left the news of the world that they should start discussions with him on whether he would be an appropriate person to go in. the first time i heard of him being approached was not from the prime minister. >> see you had no conversation with david cameron? >> the answer is no. the allegation which i have read is that i told the prime minister to higher in the and that is not true, never was true and the idea came from george -- >> so you had no conversation with david cameron about in the
12:16am
carson being sort of in a position? >> no. you are talking before his appointment. no. >> you presumably would in a social context swap gossip with david cameron and that could actually be having been obtained by illegal means. are you satisfied that your dealings with david cameron before and after the prime minister that the sort of gossip you might share was above? >> i hope my earlier assurance that in any social encounters i've had with the prime minister any conversations were wholly inappropriate both of my position of editor of the sun or
12:17am
chief executive in his position as prime minister. >> and did you approve the subsidizing of the salary after he left? >> again, that's not true. i didn't approve it. >> so the new statesman report is inaccurate that his salary is not being subsidized? >> that is correct they are incorrect. i'm sorry. >> i have one final question. >> would you agree that the public concern here is about the closeness of the police and politicians to use the world and news international? >> i think the public concern
12:18am
overwhelmingly is on the deception of voice mail was the idea that anybody could intercept the voice mail and i think that's the overwhelming concern. >> there is some concern voiced over the politicians would you agree as a matter of fact? >> i'd seen that the news and world has been singled out for that closeness, and i think if you were going to address it and you know this more than anyone on the committee because of your career as a journalist that it is wholly on a fair in discussing the closeness of police and politicians with the media to single out the news and the world. >> it is a fact this has been a criticism and yet you on your wash as chief fix it is of news
12:19am
international managed because your employee of the former director of prosecutions to advise you on your approach to evidence handing it over to the police come and while he was along with a successor who is not above criticism for herber stamping the complaisant perched the inquiry. do you think that was an error of judgment given the circumstances? >> i think to clarify the issue which is important is that he was hired by the news corporation and he has been rigorous in his separation of payments to police and the illegal inception of the voice mail. he is not permitted in any shape or form on the interception of the voice mail and if that conversation has arisen, he has
12:20am
withdrawn himself from the conversation, so -- >> people are shaking their heads. >> i can forgive people for shaking their head if they believe the question you put to me was true, but i think if people understand it was heard by news corporation not news international the report directly into the board of is only discussing payments to police officers then i don't think people would shake their heads. he has been rigorous and not involving himself in the illegal interception of whistles. >> [inaudible] unless you have anything else you'd like to add a. >> just one thing really is i know you've heard on the reserved apologies rupert and james murdock i just want to reiterate my own. the most important thing that i feel going forward for the investigation is to discover the
12:21am
allegations, the truth behind the allegations particularly for the family but the other allegations of the victims of crime, but again i would like to make one more request to the committee that when i am free from some of the legal constraints that he will invite me back so i can answer any more wholesome way. >> i think the committee would be very happy to exit the offer and in the meantime i think you for your willingness to come and the way in which you've answered our questions.
12:22am
12:23am
police have comer under criticism for closing an earlier investigation into phone hacking. there's now a new investigation underway. >> order. could i call the committee to order, and could i welcome stevenson. you're still the commissioner of the metropolitan police. >> that's why understanding. >> could i refer everyone to the members' interests but in particular for the purposes of comm session could i declare
12:24am
that i met you and we were both guests police awards which was hosted by the police federation but i and you both know the wasv rener of the gifit beginnings t i was invited to the news international party recently but i did not attend. are there other interests members need to declare complett or indirectly? >> [inaudible] but it did the chief of sycophant of the police department.ery much. >> thank you very much. thank you for coming. can i place on the record my appreciation to you? i know these are difficult times but when i spoke to you last thursday and invited you to come attend this meeting you did so agreeing immediately and you did
12:25am
say to me that events progressed and you would have to make a statement during that time. but i appreciate the fact that you always come to parliament first and have been prepared to answer questions of members of this house and specifically of this committee.xpress can you tell the committee why m you resigned bearing in mind we've all read your statementwhs you think ylly the there's no impropriety in your words inoth terms of what has happened and that you feel you've done ndire absolutely nothing wrong, that he had no direct involvement asi far as the two investigations are concerned, and the oneresi whdidlled review of the investigation, but you felt that you should resign. why did you do so? i >> you say you have -- and in sure you'veexplicit. read mike by made it very clear i would never willingly allow the story to be
12:26am
about me the leader for people who work for me or what they do. i saw the consequence of the destruction that can cause and it is wrong. that is the first thing. clearly there were significant stories. in the context of the job i do i might have -- we are in extraordinary times. we have gone through a short period. it seems to me -- if there were going to be continuous speculation, stories come to continue to distract if i was going to do something i'd get in the words of william shakespeare and our hope ' him right, do it quickly. i have to take a decision on
12:27am
behalf of the organization to allow the authority to announce a place in time to have a firm hold on the biggest challenges. it is regrettable but i have to do that. >> we have to explore the issue of the relationship -- we have other witnesses and we will look into the previous investigations. if we could concentrate further -- i spoke it 6:00 on thursday, resignation did not seen in your mind. you met the man and spoke to the secretary. is it that they did not give you the support to stay on following that? you didn't sound like you were in a resignation. when you spoke to me. when did you make up your mind you had to go? >> much speculation -- the full
12:28am
support. the secretary, lemaire, the prime minister -- i became much clearer when i was contacted saturday about the story and not apologetic by the way. when i became aware that mr. wallace -- i know you will understand this -- mr. wallace -- i should say nothing that prejudices his rights but when i became aware he was connected i felt that was a difficult story. it was very unfortunate. this is going to be a significant story that will continue. if i am going to be a leader and do the right thing by my organization i will do something like that.
12:29am
>> as far as you are concerned nobody asked you to go. you made this decision also. neither the mayor nor the prime minister felt your position is untenable. they gave you support for the work you are doing. is that right? >> absolutely right. in reality when i did speak to the secretary, he accepted very reluctantly. he thought it was wrong. the secretary -- it was very sudden and she regretted my decision. it is my decision and my decision only. >> it was against the advice of many colleagues including my wife. >> -- [inaudible] >> that was the implication. that is the implication i took from the response of the man.
12:30am
i would describe him without being overly emotional. he was very cross. he made it clear he thought it was wrong. >> we continue to ask questions on this. can i deal with the issue on one or two lines you putting your resignation statement concerning the comparison between mr. wallace and mr. coulson and we will explore that later, what happened concerning that. specifically you make reference -- this excited lot of interest -- between what you did and the employment of mr. coulson and it sounds like you took a swipe at the prime minister bearing in mind that you said the prime minister has employed somebody
12:31am
who had resigned but mr. wallace has not resigned as a result of this. there was comment that you were resigning and they were just carrying on. you were treated differently or appeared to be treated differently? >> we always live in a world where the media interprets -- i was taking notice of the prime minister to mix something--make something absolutely clear. tried to make something absolutely clear. i do agree with the prime minister when he says of course the employment of mr. coulson and mr. wallace were different. mr. wallace was never employed to be my personal assistant. i know we are going to this later. he was employed to provide
12:32am
advice -- he would give me some occasional -- that was one of the reasons and it certainly wasn't -- what i was trying to get across was simply this. when mr. coulson resigned, he said he resigned to do the honorable thing if you will be the leader and take responsibility. by definition he associated his name -- i was trying to draw the contrast. i have no reason to doubt mr. wallace's integrity and no reason to link it to hacking and no reason -- in january of 2011 when i saw the name associated trekking together.
12:33am
i meant to impugn the prime minister -- i was trying to give an example that mr. wallace never came into this. >> commenting on your relationship with mr. wallace. will to concentrate on the statement and what the -- >> many of the public feel the positions rarely take responsibility by resigning and having done so, are you concerned that may have been undermined by what is being widely interpreted as a personal attack on the prime minister? >> all i can do is -- i did it to the best of my ability. it is plainly obvious, control the way the media spins things. i made no personal attack on the
12:34am
prime minister. >> that is how i accepted your statement. isn't one significant difference that you as commissioner of the metropolitan police should have been responsible for leading the investigation. >> i would have to remind you -- as he tried to point out -- he tried to describe the work of the commissioner. that might put in context your question. we received $6 million a year. we deal with 8,000 crimes every year. i look to the things most risky. i don't investigate crime but i make inquiry and if i could tell you what i took office as commissioner and asked for a detailed briefing on the crimes that might have been committed, raping elderly people, and
12:35am
professional reputation -- and therefore a detailed briefing and we had success. and continue to ask detailed briefings because we did not have it. i did put in place briefs on counter-terrorism. i never asked a question about phone hacking. no reason to suspect it wasn't the successful operation. and have no reason -- [talking over each other] >> a lot of other people did ask that question and i would like to take credit for the guardian newspaper and the role it played in that. >> the same thing as my resignation. >> also in your resignation speech at least implied the prime minister was in some way compromised and you couldn't share what you suggested with
12:36am
them. isn't it also the case that you didn't disclose the appointment previously. >> i certainly did not imply that at all. and if you look at my speech it is quite clear. why did i not tell the prime minister that coulson -- wallace's name was connected? i had no reason to. no reason to connect wallace with phone hacking. i had no reason -- nothing came to my attention. i have no knowledge of this inquiry and i had been given assurances by a senior constable of nothing new. i had no reason to disclose a minor contract that was very part-time, someone giving me a case of advice. when he did -- or at least
12:37am
became a name all are was saying in my resignation speech was it seems to be sensible not to impugn the character of the prime minister but to consider is it right to allow anyone to ask any questions because i kept giving him operational information that someone could suggest because of his relationship -- that somehow that could open up some -- this is very relevant. my understanding is it was exactly the advice of a senior official so we don't compromise the prime minister. >> we might respond to that later. it is a very sensible position that senior official -- we should not compromise the prime minister. it seems entirely sensible.
12:38am
>> did you not tell the mayor on that occasion before mr. green was arrested -- was he not compromised bearing in mind the fact he knew mr. green and spoke to the leader of the opposition about it? how could you have done it in that case but not this? >> i might tell the mayor but didn't tell the prime minister. secondly quite frankly we had a new relationship that went something significant is going to happen, the time it is going to happen, there -- not taken by surprise. i worked very hard not to compromise anyone and if i may say so i make sure my people do no compromise, when it goes to wallace, i made sure they told me what i need to know.
12:39am
it was seven weeks ago -- it was only early last week i was told wallace may be arrested and thursday morning i was told he was arrested at day. [talking over each other] >> operation d.c. was happening in the fall. you were not to be kept informed of what was happening. you said these were questions to be asked to sue acres. you were kept informed was to be arrested? >> she informed me of pieces of that and told me he became a suspect. >> you were told rebecca brooks would be arrested? >> yes. >> how long before? >> 80 ten days? >> two days? >> i can't remember. but that is entirely proper. >> can we stick to resignations?
12:40am
[talking over each other] [inaudible] >> i was simply trying to ensure that the exchanges between the employment of mr. coulson, why would i want to risk anyone being accused of any compromise? i would not suggest for one moment -- why would i risk that compromise? my understanding is the advice from the senior official in number 10 and it is very sensible not to compromise people or leave a suggestion of compromise? >> it is not a question of keeping it secret from the home secretary. as commissioner of the metropolitan police, very substantial salary, you have
12:41am
great responsibilities and your predecessors had to tell the prime minister a lot of unpleasant things for many years. why is it this was a matter that you felt was something that you couldn't disclose? >> we were it is negative. let me remind you, wallace becoming a name in regards to packing, first time to my knowledge -- it was in an article in january of 2011. i never heard him connect data will before. [inaudible] [talking over each other] >> i think it is relevant. it is for contract. prior to that i had no reason, no concern, why would i raise a
12:42am
minor contract? when they became concerned, why would i think compromise or allow the prime minister any suggestion of compromise even though -- [talking over each other] >> -- invested got -- by the metropolitan police. mr. wallace is hiring or being investigated. >> the difference is there was no investigation. >> you were investigating lieberman were you not? >> investigating news international in january of 2011. the first investigation started in december of 2005 and ended in january of 2007. >> continue that.
12:43am
do you think there should be conflict concerning mr. wallace? you would be responsible for sharing that. >> i don't know. as i said there was no suggestion from anywhere of that. i heard senior news international people say that this was a timing issue. i had no reason to suggest it was successful. i had no responsibility for it so i am not sure there's anybody able to say that apart from mr. wallace himself. >> you volunteered that information for the criminal investigation ongoing that it might not -- your investigation might not have been necessary had there been a conflict even if it wasn't necessarily a
12:44am
conflict. it may not have made a difference. >> the contract in -- became linked with the investigation. when it became part of the investigation then to go public without evidence, they would tend to, that would be the operation. it is embarrassing to me but i would prioritize the integrity of this operation. >> we come to the integrity issue in a moment. [talking over each other] >> i find it strange the prime minister and secretary said that this case should be investigated as far as it could go. in the resignation statement -- why wouldn't you have told about
12:45am
a resignation? the home secretary found out on thursday. >> what -- would thus have told him what? what would invite -- [talking over each other] >> you didn't want to compromise the prime minister in any way? why wouldn't you? >> i would not want to open the prime minister or anybody to such compromise. a don't recall sharing information of this respect or any operation to the home secretary. >> and what else may come from that? >> i have given a pretty open and full answer. you might not like the answer but i am saying -- the advice from senior officials, by discussing this particular operation because of the unique circumstances and exchanges over
12:46am
mr. coulson's employment i would not like to compromise -- open to any allegations as responsible as they might be, that they could at all of the compromise. >> when you were told -- you did not tell the mayor about this or anyone else? >> i did not. >> julie and hubbard. -- julien hubbard. [laughter] >> i would not want to compromise the mayor. that is the difference between governments and operational independence. >> you did tell the mayor about -- [talking over each other] >> it was my idea. at the time of making a significant arrest -- i am surprised -- are hardly think people were that surprised.
12:47am
>> your resignation -- one of the big issues is the question of morale. are stopped last week by an officer who described embarrassment to senior police. a real concern about more route or a number of changes and there are number of rules. you're the first to clean this up on the more outside. and what they can do to restore that? >> us support public and private messages -- i will be doing that before i go. i had spoken to many police
12:48am
officers since my resignation. they spoke about their pride even though they don't feel they could walk away with it might interfere with their discharges in a few years so in a similar way in many areas of the organization there is great pride. what are point to is we have to restore some confidence. it is about -- we do have to make sure the meeting doesn't restore the public's fairness around this one hacking issue. >> i want to take you back to your resignation statement where you stated you had no reason to suspect involvement in phone hacking. no reason or no knowledge of the expense of the disgraceful practice or the repugnant nature of the level that reach senior
12:49am
levels but over the year you have been reported in 2006, the idea of the report in which they said investigations have uncovered evidence of a widespread and organized under cover market. among the buyers of many journalists looking for a story. in one major case investigated evidence included records of information by 305 journalists looking for a range of spaces. in a follow-up report in the news of the world of one of those, 228 transactions were positively identified phone hacking and 23 journalists. do you not think that might have alerted you to the fact that there might have been phone hacking at that time? >> i don't. i go back to what i said
12:50am
earlier. some newspaper publication -- [talking over each other] >> some newspaper organizations had a worse problem. [talking over each other] >> if you deal with your resignation statement -- [talking over each other] >> i come back to what i said when i spoke to the prime minister. i prioritize risk. [laughter] >> not yet prepared. when i became -- [talking over each other] >> when i became commissioner looked at the risks and those high-profile risks and are have to say it is regrettable when you see the repugnant nature that was selected here and i support the statements about
12:51am
what he knows now. there is no reason for that to be on my desk. there was no reason--it hadn't come back for many years on counter-terrorism operations. major cases -- phone hacking was not. even with that report. >> thank you. >> in your own words -- [inaudible] -- over five years, personal friend of assistant commissioner yates, mr of the 10's is you and mr. yates -- it seems the hospitality plea for a
12:52am
little he didn't move as he points out with him and to prevent that information. >> i am completely baffled as to how anyone would talk about that. >> and what about in pure business terms, having the hospitality of this establishment -- isn't it strange? you said in the resignation statement -- others conveying the right information on assuming this. would you have thought someone would take the double --
12:53am
accepting this hospitality and establishment that there was a business connection between an individual on this side to the organization that you run? >> the only way to know that is if mr. wallace declares that. i don't know of anyone who knows if he was connected. >> can you ask anyone when you said to the hospitality if there was anything you should do? >> if you ask anyone -- not the smartest thing to do. >> absolutely not. at gun think it was the smartest thing to do. i was recovering from a serious
12:54am
illness and wheelchair-bound and in pain and my intention was to come back to work as soon as possible. [inaudible] >> there was a connection between mr. wallace -- >> he had a connection with the establishment and this organization, not asking you to justify -- i am asking whether it is appropriate for hospitality and the establishment for a business connection in your organization, normal exercises are not normal and you -- your senior officers. >> we have to -- >> when it is a personal thing. >> personal friend of whom? >> mr. wallace has a personal friend. >> mr yates would have to tell you if he knew of the connection. i am confident he would not.
12:55am
>> just to clarify matters -- mr wallace was the head of news of the world with mr coulson. and mr. wallace, phone hacking and all the rest, with mr coulson. >> he was -- [talking over each other] >> wanted to get back on the record on the part of a few men. kenna come after the question -- i am not questioning the fault of your integrity. i want to make that quite clear but leaving aside the position of mr. wallace, was there not
12:56am
clearly -- was there not a situation inappropriate for any police officer, the most senior as the case may be to received substantial hospitality? >> in these circumstances -- a family friend connection. it was a generous offer. it enabled me to get back to work quickly. i do not think it is appropriate. it was unlucky that wallace was connected with this. >> if it changed the notice of the mayor and came after you, free meals as the case may be, nowhere near the hospitality you received about some 12,000
12:57am
pounds. would there be some questions about the person they followed, the police officer, and being offered such, free of charge and the rest of it. wouldn't there be questions? asking him relationship with the person who provided you with free meals? >> we would agree there most certainly would be. there was good reason for doing it and it was secretly. this was declared -- >> there was no need to do that? >> i put in my hospitality registered -- [talking over each other] >> we have some questions to rescue before this goes on record. my appreciation of the metropolitan commission and the office -- are have no question what you said or any questions
12:58am
about this. there are some questions we need to ask and light of our inquiry particularly about the relationship between the police and the press. one of the things that strikes me looking at this is the extent of the connection between yourself and other metropolitan offices with news international particularly the amount of time you were speaking about the times you have lunch or dinner with them. you had 18 lunches or dinners with the news of the world and you have seven or eight with mr wallace himself over a five year period. can you explain why that was necessary, and didn't the same thing happen with other
12:59am
newspapers? >> you are referring to the document which i am sure you have seen. if we could let you see it so we know what we were talking about? >> i declared -- [talking over each other] >> thank you very much. let me go back to what i said previously. there's a reason the commissioner met with the media to promote the reputation -- the context of policeing or make sure -- what i would say coming out of this inquiry is it is quite clear to me that we need to change the way we do it. i am at the end of my term. are already pledged changing the way we have got to do this and explain what we're doing better.
1:00am
-- she would come in and talk foremost about that so that issue can revise not just transparency but why we do things. and i just put a little bit on news international? a little conte .. 2005, and 2010, 17% of all my contacts, news of the world represents readership. in the same period 30% of my contacts -- an extraordinary percentage. it represents 42% of press readership. if i maintain the relationship with the media it wasn't my decision to allow news international to be so dominant in the market but if i am in the top of the immediate and they make 42% of their readership in
1:01am
this country, did you have lunch or dinner with other newspapers? significant reach as yes, well, that's what it's indicating. the other 70% were newspapers. one of the issues we did have was with "the guardian," and they carried reports, a day or two ago, that you had had a meeting with them to say that you tried to dissuade them the coverage of phone hacking was exaggerated and incorrect, and that you had a meeting to that effect in december p 2009; is that right? >> yes. >> you're telling us that you have not in particular, before january 2010 because it was a backstage? >> january 2011. >> this is 2009. before seeing a newspaper to
1:02am
dissuade them they were getting it wrong, i presume you looked over the evidence and over the case to be able to be in a position to have the assurance? >> i had many people assisting me, and i had counsels such as mr. yates gave me assurances that there was nothing new actually -- i think i had to rely on those assurances. i had no reason at all to doubt the success of the first operation, so i went to "the guardian" a and i acknowledged we go to them, and we went to them. >> well, one of the things that's come out to us and during the course of the last hearing was in the meantime since 2006 there's been a lot of home made inquiries by individuals who thought they were hacked taking individual legal action privately to obtain information from themselves from the news of
1:03am
the world, news international, and that's all been coming to light. were you aware of that when you went to see "the guardian," and what do you think of that? >> i'm not aware of people making claims, but going to the guardian, i want to understand what they were saying. i wanted to say i'm receiving these assurances. i don't understand why you don't accept the assurances, and it's clear they didn't so i suggested to them they seize because i wanted to keep the dialogue going. >> let's move on to your relationship with mr. wallace and his employment with the point of interest point. it seems odd, does it not, and you're a distinguished police officer, that the news of the world has an exemployee working for the news of the world, and they had an exemployee working for you. did that not strike you odd either by coincidence or dlitly
1:04am
that the deputy ends up with the leader of the opposition, and the deputy editor of the news of the world ends up with the police commissioner. >> well -- >> i accept what you said about mr. wallace that there's no implication he was involved with phone hacking when you took him on. we accept that support because it's not been recorded anywhere else, but suspect -- isn't that odd? you would have within with the deputy, and mr. carson would have known that mr. wallace was working for you. it's inconceive when he would not have known that he had a contract with the police. >> well, my recollection, i think i'm right no saying i don't think i ever met mr. corson at all. >> did you meet mr. cameron
1:05am
before he became prime minister? >> i think i did. yes, i did. one meeting with him. >> it's inconceivable he would not have known one of the people working for you was his ex-mate at the news of the world surely? this must be discussed. >> i'm sure it's a close relationship between mr. corson and wallace, but i think i just met him once. i didn't meet them together at all, and i had no further discussions with them. >> it's inconceivable they would have known about each other's jobs. >> if they were friends, it seems inconceivable. >> let's move on -- >> it's extortion to say mr. corson was working for me. mr. wallace was not working directly for me. this was a minor part time role
1:06am
through which i received some occasional advice. >> excellent. let's look at that role. were you one of the people consulted when offered the contract? you have 69 press officers, but you needed another consultant. >> i think it's 45. >> 45, okay. has it gone down? >> it's 45. >> right. but you needed an extra consultant. >> well -- >> were you consulted before he was appointed. >> yes, i was. let me say with the benefits of what we know now, i'm happy to put on the record we regret the contracts. it's embarrassing, but this is a time when mr. fedorcio had a long term absence with a serious illness. you were consulted -- >> i can take it further. i think mr. fedorcio needed
1:07am
additional support. when neil wallace made it known to me, when the name came up, i had no concerns bouts that. he may be a suitable pers and i would have no concerns about that. i know mr. fedorcio would have mentioned that to me, and i know he would have gone away. >> you mean to suggest his name? >> no, i don't -- >> you were consulted, but did you make the final decision? >> no. i have to say i was not discomforted by the fact that mr. wallace came out of the process because i knew nothing of the detriplet. >> it is argued in the media that actually the metropolitan police actually asked mr. wallace tews the job. is that correct? >> you have to ask mr. fedorcio. >> we will shortly. did you know mr. wallace's daughter was employed? >> i don't think i knew that until recently. >> when was that? >> i think it was the weekend
1:08am
or -- yeah, i think it was the weekend or something like that. >> there's lots of people who worked there, and you don't know every single person. >> i think that is a natural characterization. >> can i ask about the declarations of the editors? they are very interesting what's in them. there's no information about value of various meals and things like that which is a thing to look at future reference. a fancy dinner is more than a nice dinner. i can't find hospitality and whether or not that was appropriate to accept, surely it should have been publicly declared, and can you point to where that would have been declared? >> i came back -- when i came back from sick, i made sure it was put in the hospitality register for the previous. it's in my register, and it will be published at the end of next autumn. >> when did you start receiving
1:09am
that hospitality? >> when i came back from being ill. >> which was -- >> i think i came back in april the 15th. >> we'll see it? >> next publication, yes. >> okay. >> do you have a -- >> thank you. michael? >> thank you. commissioner, your playing down the ralph mr. wallace. it was a thousand pounds a day? is that a minor role? >> i'm told, and i can look at the process. he was the cheapest person available. >> i see. >> of the people -- >> but you said to an early question that you did meet with the guardian, the editor and chief of the guardian while employing mr. wallace? >> i'd have to look. i know i met with him on two occasions.
1:10am
>> from 2009 to 2010. >> can you remind me of the dates. >> december the 10 #th, 2009. >> fine, yes. >> did you put pressure on mr. -- >> i didn't put pressure. there was assurances that there was nothing knew it it. it seemed appropriate. i understand i meet with them and represented with what i was being told, and that that was this was nothing knew. they were clearly not going to listen to that, so i suggested they meet with john yates. >> the guardian understood that from you, the phone hacking story they were working on was up accurate, incorrect, and wrongly implied and a
1:11am
conspiracy? >> to my knowledge, in fact, the story was correct. it was not engaged in a conspiracy. >> the story was not inaccurate or incorrect. >> there was a suggestion they were involved in a conspiracy, i have no information to spot that. >> thank you. i just want to continue on that. you met with the editor in chief of "the guardian" on december the 10th believing they were in the investigation of the phone hacking. you write to the editor on february 2010, and in it you actually say once again presenting accurate position of our perspective and continue to apply the case is not handled properly and is a conspiracy. that was your words in a letter. mr. wallace, who is employed in october 2009, consulted about
1:12am
the meetings or letters before you went to see -- >> absolutely not. he didn't work in my office or for me, and i never had a conversation with mr. wallace about phone hacking or been present where anyone else had conversations about phone hacking. >> you didn't take advice from him prior to the meeting, did you talk after the meeting? >> i did not take advice from mr. wallace at all. he was actually an employee to get media support to mr. fedorcio, nothing to do with the meetings or up vest gageses. >> thank you. it is normal when you take on a con -- contract person that you look at their background. is it not normal to ask that you ask people who their clients
1:13am
are? >> you have to ask mr. fedorcio. i have no rule whatsoever in procurements for any contracts. i don't play any role in procurements. it's better that way, and i played to role in these procurements. >> thank you. >> he was employed at the states in september 2009 to october 10. that is a period, wasn't it, when the decision was taken to pursue port the allegation -- further the allegations of phone hacking? >> he was employed in -- i think the decision was -- i couldn't tell you when the decision was taken. ask mr. yates. i think it was july 2009, he said there was nothing new. >> it was implied between object of 2009?
1:14am
>> the decision not to go further was taken prior to that point. >> but he was known obviously as being a former deputy editor of the news of the world, and what was asked of you, doesn't it seem amazing that the next already looked into phone hacking, decided on the dates you said not to pursue the matter further, and yet the person who is actually involved actively in the paper, of the phone hacking, the deputy editor of the news of the world was faced on by the mets. you don't see a contradiction whatsoever? >> i don't see a contradiction because i already said i had no reason whatsoever to think there was anything wrong with the original investigation other than it was successful. i had no knowledge of information we held, and i received assurance there was nothing new in the information regarding 2009. i had no reason to become concerned about mr. wallace.
1:15am
i heard international figures saying this was a robbed few, and people at the senior level did not know about it. why would i have any reason to have suspicion about mr. wallace? >> because phone hacking was very much a matter and serious allegations, a decision not to seek it further in 2009, and yet the person who was the deputy editor of the news of the world, the very paper accused of phone hacking, turned out was employed by those investigated for phone hacking. you see nothing wrong with that at all? >> if i can remind you, the police were investigating phone hacking in 2005 and 2007 when people were convicted. as far as i was aware, that was a successful investigation. >> you asked him to look at it again, and weeks later, mr. wallace was given his job. we accept there's no evidence,
1:16am
but you're a police officer with years of experience. surely, you'd think to yourself it's very odd that former news international employees, one working with the leader of the opposition, one working with me, it's almost like a fashion accessory that people use and leave in the world and come to work for the police or politicians, and then you're officers leave the police force and work for the news international. didn't you have suspicions about this? i sense there's no hard evidence, but yourself a police officers. surely, you would have had suspicions. >> there was no evidence available to me, not hard eve. secondly, it was not there when i was commissioner. no, i don't read the comments. >> you didn't know he worked -- >> i knew he worked, but i don't
1:17am
read the comments. >> i'm very upset to hear that. >> nicholas blackwood. >> forward dissent no information is out and i regret the contract being taken on. >> we read that mr. yates has been a close friend of mr. wallace for about 12 years. it's characterized in one newspaper that yates thought wallace was a fantastic guy, but the strange thing is he's regarded as a monster in the newsrooms he worked in, but yates had the utmost respect for him. do you feel some of the personalities might have been blinded by friendship and judgment might have been clouded because of relationships of the international journalists?
1:18am
>> i genuinely have no reason to believe that. of course, you have asked and will ask more questions of mr. yates. i have no reason to believe that. mr. clark was the first inquirer of huge reputation, and i have no reason to believe that his judgment was impaired. ask mr. yates that, and i cannot characterize their relationship or the nature of what the people believe of mr. wallace. i'm not that close to them. >> but when we discussed mr. yates's assessment of the material in twine and asked if me -- 2009 and asked if he felt there was a need to do the minimum to get the review off the desk as quickly as possible and focus on more important thing, he said that probably was the case, and i just wonder to what extent
1:19am
it's possible that his relationship with a news international journalist might have covered that judgment in some way and so what extent do you know mr. yates that that would be possible? >> knowing mr. yates, i have no reason to believe that whatsoever. i have respect for mr. yates, and i have no reason to believe it. >> few more wees, and we must move on. >> i apologize, but you must be why it's become significant now. you thought that he was appointed because mr. fedorcio needed support. he was appointed to work in specialist operations, the directer of public affairs under the commissioner's office to obey strategic communication, advice, and support. what was he there to do for you in your office? >> he was not appointed to work for my office, never worked for
1:20am
my office. i don't recall him coming to my office. it was one of the rules he was begin -- >> he was appointed to mr. fedorcio and give me occasional advice on speakers. >> nothing done at all? >> that's not the occasion for speeches, but very much about the media and did not work in my office or direct me. >> let's explore this. we have questions about all the inquiry of the review. you've been given the full account of what you read. p -- >> i suspect that's why i'm here. >> yes, sir. this is a question at the time that people looking at this would see as an obvious question. knowing mr. yates is a great freepped of neil wallace, known him for a long time, and neil wallace was the deputy editor of
1:21am
the news of the world around the time the original phone hacking accusations, did you think asking mr. yates of doing the up vest gages -- investigation at that point? >> there's several things there. firstly, to repeat, i had no reason to doubt mr. wallace at all. there was absolutely no reason for me to do that so i can't see how there's a conflict. i knew mr. yates was a friend of wallace, but it wasn't relative to what i asked him to do, and the only reason i asked him to do it because he was in charge of a business group that recently did the investigation. the review was to look really whether the original investigation got it right and whether or not phone hacking was more extensive, and you went on with the ainsurances you gave them. surely mr. wallace had been an employee of news international, been in the newsroom as deputy
1:22am
editor creates a conflict of interest. >> well, of course, your sentence is not the case, sir. can i remind you what i asked mr. yates to do, and i read from -- >> heading the investigation -- >> quite simply, i did not ask him to review it. i asked him to establish the facts of the case and look into the detail, and i would anticipate making a statement later that day. >> how did you feel confident given that was a very limited review carried out, how did you feel confident to go to the guardian saying it was all wrong and they exaggerated? >> there was no reason not to think the original investigation was a success. there were people acceptability to prison for it. -- sent to prison tar it. mr. yates looked at it and said there was nothing new in it. >> right. let's move on to the three investigations. members want to ask you about
1:23am
it. it's critical. in respect to the first investigation, you mentioned hindsight when you resigned sunday. do you accept the simple clark investigation was not as thor roar as -- thorough as what you would have expected? do you accept that now? >> i would not characterize the investigation. i heard the evidence given was clear to me. secondly, do i accept -- >> do you feel mr. haven -- [inaudible] >> the man who ran the investigation had integrity. secondly, do i effect this material with hindsight there was the investigation, yes, yes i do. thirdly, do i accept the reasons
1:24am
why it's there? i think that is for what mr. clark justifies and it's a matter for the judiciary -- [inaudible] >> yes, let's go into the second review, and michael is here, and the reason you asked him to review. we had evidence of mr. yates. he said he took eight hours to look at the evidence. what were your expectations when you asked him to do this, how long did you expect him to take in >> i had no expectations for how long. again, i go back to my statements and letter to you, there's the last word in the statement, and it's i anticipated that statement would be about letting people know, but i had no anticipation on the time scales. they had another look at it, just take a look, and come to a conclusion. >> thank you.
1:25am
>> in july 2009 when you asked john yates with phone hacking, what did you expect that fresh look to involve? >> well, it was a big story, and i was traveling to winchester. i had no knowledge of it. i didn't have a great deal of expectation given the person in charge of the old self-incriminate -- old script investigated it. >> did you accept at that time, and in retrospect, would you accept the materials to be reviewed? >> no, i wouldn't. unless there's reason to doubt the original up -- investigation, i would expect him to look at the new information to come to light and did it alter the position and
1:26am
alter clarity? mr. yates cames to review there was no new information in there. >> you didn't think there was anything to be discovered? >> it wasn't whether i thought there was or not. i asked mr. yates to look at it. >> we now know there was massive material, and i underline the words "massive material" which we now know was not reviewed at that time. does that surprise you in retrospect? >> in terms of what he said does not surprise me. being on questions of matters, and i know he spoke about it, but you have to talk to mr. yates. i'm not surprised that he had no reason to suspect the original investigation was not successful. it is very regretful that information was not there. >> how is that decision now? what we know in retrospect is
1:27am
that the original material was looked into -- looked at in terms of seeking information for the potential prosecutions that were being pursued. we also know what was other material which has in consequence amounted to serious up vest -- investigations. we heard from mr. clark that the reason there was not greater investigation about massive material was because there was a massive pressure -- massive pressure on him and his offices in terms of the potential terrorist threats and investigations so in retrospect do you think the nations should have been accelerated or escalated to your attention to have the review not go further
1:28am
into the massive material that was there? >> i don't know -- unless what we're saying is dishonest, and that is we have no reason to doubt the success of the original up vest gages. >> no, the original investigation we were told in the committee was a narrow one, and as already indicated in the question, we now know there was a matter of material that may not have been relevant to the individuals being investigated at that time, but was extremely relevant to all the massive concerns that have come out since. at some point, as we understand it, the decision was taken when the resources were not available to undertake that. >> i was going to say in the second part of the issue of your question. i would have no way of knowing what the perimeters were of the original investigation or indeed
1:29am
it wasn't or indeed it was the resourcing issue. >> who do you think that should have been brought to the attention of at that time in >> i don't see how it could have been because i don't think anybody else had that knowledge. >> in september 2010 we asked whether or not there was a refresh of the investigation, and at that time, mr. yates was not able to give us a yes or no. do you believe there was a new investigation going on at that stage? >> i think from recollection, mr. yates has to confirm this, but mr. yates looking again was scoping it because i think that followed disclosured in the "new york times". >> it was briefed there was no new evidence meaning the mayor made his cultural statements there this was a politically motivated attempt to rejeep rate this issue. --
1:30am
regenerate this issue. that's what mr. yates said to the mayor. did he tell that to you? did he tell you the results? >> first of all, i don't think he said that to the mayor. >> no -- >> secondly, ask mr. yates -- i know mr. yates did brief the mayor. what it was, i really don't know. >> you didn't see the review? >> didn't see what? >> reviews within eight hours. >> he gave he -- >> a verbal briefing? >> it would have been. i was in manchester, and he was in london. >> this is my result? >> from memory, i don't know whether he told me the result. that would not be a problem to me. i gave him the job to do, and he did the job. >> did he mention the article in the "sunday telegraph" last week to this committee as well, he remember evidence put in bean bags -- >> i don't recall --
1:31am
>> you don't recall the evidence being bagged -- >> i think i heard of it before today. >> when did you find there was massive evidence being kept? >> the only way i could find out was when the investigation was reopened in january 2011. >> is it correct that after six years, it's the policy to dispose of evidence that is no longer required, or what is the policy? >> i can't give the detailed policy, but i can afterwards. >> would you? i'd be keen to know. >> you have no reason to think that the first investigation hadn't been completely successful and there were no further needs to follow up, but peter clarke when he gave evidence like pes the original investigation to a complex thought in that there were 11,000 dams and it was -- documents and it was necessary to set parameters in order to be
1:32am
able to use the evidence effectively and to gain prosecutions and that necessarily a lot of the evidence had not been examined for possible additional indictments, and then due to the fact that there were problems of resources and very high terror threat level at the time, there was then the decision not to have an exhaustive analysis following immediately afterward. now, with this clues to you in 2009 giving you the sense that perhaps it would be necessary in 2009 to do more than one day's review in order to assess those 11,000 documents? >> no, absolutely not. phone hacking did not become -- >> just the nature of the evidence in your possession was not revealed to you by your officers? >> no. >> thank you. >> thank you, sir. >> brief questions. >> i will do my best, sir.
1:33am
reporting that the information was a source, was providing information to the mets, and that in exchange giving information from the police national computer. if that's true, that's the question of what happens to police information and journalists. the information had. given in question with close connections. if this is correct, would you have been aware of this? would mr. yates been aware of this, would it effect the decision to think who never was, but i think it was obvious who it was. >> i have not been aware of it. i strongly suspect mr. yates was not aware of it, but i certainly would not have been aware of it. >> the essay regarding asking mr. yates to establish the full
1:34am
facts of the case, but what discussions did you actually have with mr. yates when you -- presumably he told you he was instructed to do this to make a statement publicly? >> i told him could he have a look at it. >> did you advise him what steps that would involve? >> not with his experience and practical steps on how to decide whether there is more in this or not. >> what point were you aware of the civil action taken by individuals that was going out further for information? >> i really couldn't help you with that. i don't know what point i was aware, but i have to say it still wouldn't have been a priority. what was priority on my desk if i had known about the hideous nature. >> one final question. do you resent the comment made at the start about not wanting to compromise the prime
1:35am
minister. you said it was beneficial and told you not to share that information with mr. cameron, is that correct? >> let me make it clear that i do not believe that the prime minister would be compromised. i was just guiding him against any acquisitions that he might pick up. second, i did not say that -- [inaudible] it is my understanding that it is consistent with the advice from senior official, but i think mr. yatess might have -- >> [inaudible] >> i don't know, but that's -- >> who had that conversation? >> my suggestion is ask mr. yatess. >> we will. >> to the extent that mr. yates felt he was expected to do the minimum with this review or whatever it's to be described as, is that not understand l? i mean,nd i -- i mean, i don't know you're saying the statement was a
1:36am
reference one, but do you understand where it might be that mr. yates could have felt under pressure to produce quick results when you had told your colleagues at the conference i asked john yates to establish the facts of the case and look into the detail and i anticipate making a statement later today. >> if i can finish that statement -- >> okay. >> i don't think it was pressure. it makes a different because it might be that mr. yates couldn't make a statement later that day. i was trying to do a big story with the headlines, lots of people asking questions and was trying to indicate we would say more about it later. >> you said that the statement we made later that day whether perhaps or not that that meant that mr. yates was under pressure to produce some results and the public may well think that the decision not to reopen
1:37am
the investigation was made at the top. >> well, i don't think that puts pressure on -- i can't answer what he thinks on that. i don't see why. it's something we would do. big stories airing on radio four, we tried to put something out as soon as possible what we were doing regarding the big story. >> that came to your press office? >> the senior up -- investigation officer or whoever was making the statement. >> we have all the witnesses. >> yes, you told mr. yatess to take another look, and it was a cursory look, and you knew it to be a cursory look because he just gave you it later in the day; is that right? >> i was aware later in the day he didn't think there was anything new. >> but had "the guardian" told you there was more to it at that time that had been in the public
1:38am
domain? >> all i can tell you is mr. yates looked at it and didn't think there was anything new. >> we'll ask mr. yates. >> blackwood? >> your formal request to mr. yates was regarding the view. i wonder if you have any of the record discussions which might have begin him suggestions to the parameters which you would prefer he use to his review? any discussions, formal remarks you might have begin to him that suggests he do work? >> any way? >> inforformal remarks you -- informal remarks you remember having with the discussion? >> no. on the phone i would have asked him to pick it up. >> final question. >> you said on a nowmple occasions now to seep your members of your team as -- senior members of your team, and
1:39am
i think i heard you correctly that chief -- these are members of your team, not of independent chief officers of police in that sense, are they? they are accountable to you. the implication of what you said seems to suggest that the met operates as a senior, as a series of empires almost. would you like to clarify that? >> i certainly would. some might say that's indicated, but that's certainly not the case now. i'm trying to set the context, and the context is when people are asking me did i supervise john yates, give him guidelines, i think he would accept he's a senior grade in demand, and strong experience. that's the context. >> that's a helpful clarification, but in that
1:40am
context we're expressing some surprise as you were the chief officer responsible with the deputy to stand in in the event that you were otherwise occupied that some of these matters were not escalated to the consideration at led level by these very experienced senior members of the metropolitan police team. >> i think i've given as full answers as i possibly can as so why this was not seen as priority until such time that we had what we thought was a new additional information. my understanding is that new additional information came in january of 2011. of course; i was away at the time. >> we were already asking the questions whether there was pressure to the investigation outside the met there just seems to be there was belief of material to be examined. >> my understanding when you ask the questions is mr. yatess was saying there was a "new york
1:41am
times" connection and my understanding is you have to ask mr. yates or perhaps mr. donohue who was standing in for me. i can't be sure about that. i wasn't there. >> can i ask a few questions in conclusion that are in the public domain? alex merichek, a name probably not familiar with, but became familiar with yesterday. he was a translater, did you know that before yesterday? >> [inaudible] >> do you know of anyone else who is a former employee of the news of the world who now works at the met or a question to put to others? >> it was in the letter you sent to me last week. >> it was. >> i'll be as helpful as possible without giving information to harm individuals. there was ten who worked for news international in some capacity in some cases as
1:42am
journalists or other work for the organization. i can't help more than that. >> [inaudible] >> ten members of dps -- >> what is dpa? >> department of public affairs. >> in his staff there's 10 out of 45 -- >> yes, that's the information i have now. >> we'll ask him in a moment. presume you just discovered this. >> well, you asked the question. i tried to -- could i do -- >> in respect to sean, do you have any information with the public doe map. >> no, sir. >> commissioner, this may be the last time you appear before the select committee as commissioner. can i ask you where you think your resignation and the resignation of john yates which we all accept as a shock, leaves the service that you have been
1:43am
involved with for so many years. many years of distinguished service, every person who spoke about you since your resignation referred you as an honorable man and person of integrity. i'm a little bit puzzle why you've resigned bearing in mind you had no involvement with the organization or no involvement of the appointment other than being consulted and didn't do much for you. given that you have resigned, and that's now a fact. where does this leave the mets? >> well, i think there's two issues there. one, where it's leave the mets, and you're puzzled why i resigned. let me say where does it leave the mets. clearly, these are huge events. regrettable events, and i would say that i sincerely regret that mr. yates is gone. i think the work he's done is splendid and poorer for this
1:44am
frankly. the mets has 50,000 people, and the vast majority of the are decent hard working professionals and will be well-led. the interims will work very well. i am confident the mets will maintain. >> damminged by this badly -- damaged by this badly? >> certainly not helpful. having a commissioner resign is not helpful. >> but you think trust can be restored in respect to what can happen in the future? >> well, i most certainly do. i think we need to make changes in the way we handle media. some changes are made, and that's what my appointment was yesterday to actually come in and give independent advice. i think we need to tread with the media differently in the future, much more transparently. you asked me, you're still a little bit of why i resigned. i think i gave you a fair and
1:45am
full statement. you mentioned this may be the last time i appear before you. well, this is almost certain many my final engagements, and i'm not going to try to assist you and add to my resignation speech. i think it was rather lengthy and it's on public record. with that said, the ill-informed media speculation, i'm not leaving because i'm pushed or have anything to fear or threatened or not leaving because there's lack of support from the mayor, prime minister, or secretary, and until my resignation, their support was very strong, and their comments most generous. i'm going because of leadership. leadership is not about popularity. it's about making decisions that put your organization, your mission, and the people you lead first. it's about doing things that
1:46am
make them proud to be leaders, and that's different than being popular with them. it's making decisions that are difficult, but that's leadership, and that's where i'm going. >> the support, you have been very courteous, asked -- answers questioned for over an hour and a half. on behalf of the committee, we wish you the best in the future. thank you. >> order, could we have mr. fedorcio. you heard the evidence, and we'll go straight into it without long introductions. just go the questions. can you tell us the position you hold in the metropolitan police service, what is the job you do? >> director of public affairs which means i'm responsible for the mets media relations,
1:47am
responsible for corporate internal community cation, responsible for marketing and any other communications. >> in respect of these matters and specifically want to talk about the matters, were you the person who signed off the contract to employee mr. wallace? >> yes. >> why did you employ mr. wallace knowing full well in your teen euroof foreign -- tenure of foreign affairs there was many, many questions of news of the world, you knew of the peter clarke investigation and the yates i think -- investigation because you organized the press outside the yard because he was not taking matters further. why did you employ him knowing this? >> i'm very keen to be as open and helpful as i can for the committee today, but, as you
1:48am
will be aware, only a couple hours ago i was informed that i'm referred to the police commission for investigation. i have not been able to take legal advice in that time, so i hope you'll bear with me and guide me if i'm straying to areas that make more questions in the future. >> all our witnesses are referred to the independent commission, and that didn't stop the commissioner so you can take your guidance from him. >> thank you. >> it's a committee of parliament which is sovereign, and we can take evidence from anybody we want, and there's no risk of you being charged, is there? >> i don't believe so. >> feel free to answer the questions. >> i have not had the opportunity to have legal advice. >> if you could answer the questions, we will not key on statements. we know the facts, the
1:49am
background anyway. you made the decision to hire mr. wallace. you needed another consultant, why mr. wallace bearing in mind mr. clarke completed the investigation in 2006 and there's the request of the commissioner. why give this to the man who is the deputy editor of the news of the world? >> where should i start? the need that i had for external advice and support came out of a commissioner that explained his identity was gorped going re-- undergoing recooperation from illness. yet today, he has yet to return to full work. i was effectively doing two jobs at the top of the department. it was the strategic level of work i was working on. i was under great pressure, and i felt i needed help and assistance and the commissioner
1:50am
suggested i look and find. >> we understand why you found him. >> i had been looking some time to find someone who i felt had the right experience and background and knowledge that could provide an assistance to me. i, over a period of time, spoke to a number of colleagues, professionals outside the organization who i know, to seek their views on how i could go about this. i came to the view and what i needed is what i call a retainer contract, a contract to give me access at short notice to someone as an adviser -- >> we understand that, but why him? >> i'm coming to that. >> why mr. wallace. >> that contract in place to move quickly if i needed advice. i -- one of the names put to me
1:51am
was neil, his departure from the news of the world. i was aware of it. i can't remember to be hoppest as to who, but i was made aware of it having left the news of the world was available for consultant work. he was setting up on his own and was therefore available. i saw mr. wallace -- >> whom you never met before? >> saw him on some occasions. i should say i know mr. wallace as a business colleague since 1997. >> as a business colleague? >> as a business colleague through public affairs, and that's when i first met him. >> right. isn't he a professional person, not a colleague, but someone you dealt with regularly? when you say business colleague, you were in business together in >> professional, right. >> you've known him? >> i don't know --
1:52am
i did know him, but not a personal friend. >> right. >> i have known him in the role that he fulfilled. >> are you aware of the background of hacking into investigations and after appointed, when did you actually give him the contract? >> i gave him the contract was awarded at the end of september 2009. >> and mr. yates finished the review on the 9th of july? >> three months earlier, yes. >> eight weeks after the review was completed, you gave him a contract? >> yes. >> so we hear all about phone hacking allegations before mr. wallace was appointed. that's clear. >> the police investigation had taken police, i knew the decisions around that, and i knew the statement made by the police. i was aware of the media
1:53am
coverage taken place, and it was within that context that i made the decision. >> two people were sentenced and acceptability -- sent to prison? >> that took place two and a half years earlier. >> wouldn't the first question, i speak as a layman and not a journalist, wouldn't the first question, one of mr. wallace, since you were the deputy editor of the news of the world, the center of allegations of phone hacks, can you tell us, in my view, to mr. wallace, would you know about phone hacking? did you ask that question? >> i can explain very quickly is that i having considered him as a consultant i could take on amongst the other names i had in mind, i spoke to john yates and adviced him on what i was -- advised him on what i was thinking about doing.
1:54am
he conducted due diligence and he can explain that to you better than i can later, but as far as i was concerned, neil wallace gave mr. yates categorical assurance there was nothing to embarrass him, mr. yates, or all the police. >> as i was saying, you didn't ask mr. wallace the question of the information that i assume would be asked because he had been asked by mr. yates; is that right? >> mr. yates made me aware of that. >> what did he say to you? did mr. yates say it's perfectly to employ him because he was no way involved with phone hacking? >> i can't remember the actual words or the conversation, but -- >> what he said was the parcel of what he said when he spoke to you? >> he said as far as he was concerned, i've spoken to mr. wallace, there was nothing to could embarrass any of us.
1:55am
>> how long were you involved with that? >> oh, probably 40 years. >> it wouldn't have occurred to you with all your vast experience to ask the question yourself bearing in mind what phone hacking meant and had. quite in the news and contradictions, people sent to prison over phone hacking connected with the news of the world. it wouldn't have occurred to you, -- until can you tell me -- [inaudible] >> i think he asked if mr. wallace had on one occasion. >> thank you. >> yes. >> you're head of public affairs. you say you're responsible for marketing, and mr. wallace has another pr consultant.
1:56am
i may be naive, but isn't it better if the mets focus on catching criminals? >> it is concentrated on catching criminals. >> why do you have 50 odd some people in pr? why not just concentrate on the basics? >> i don't believe so. like it or not, the media have a strong interest in police work, there's significant demand for police, and the police officers do their investigations and they want information out of them. the police officers would spend their time dealing with that approach. having press officers in place, we take the pressure off the investigating officers to get on with their job, and in the main press officers cost less. >> could some savings be made? >> always savings to be made, and my department contributed to savings over the last ten years. >> thank you. >> make it quick, please.
1:57am
>> indeed. mr. fedorcio, you maintained contract with the journalists, and nation request revealed people from news international, and we have to be transparent about these things and we discussed it. however, tied to public affairs there's no gifts or hospitalities since march 2009, and back then it's the directer who only declares 12 breakfasts, two dinners, and some tickets. what's going on? were you just trying to not tell the public about the meetings? why is it not declared openly and transparently like the rules say you should be doing? >> until recently, the registers were published on the website. that work is now done to back date all the rest of the organizations' hospitality at the senior level for the last three or four years, and it's
1:58am
going to be published shortly. that's not my responsibility and that's a recent decision take p to expand publication of hospitality. >> it seems there's this january-march window. there's no who had it, who was it was from, what the value was. i mean, do you at least accept that is particularly giving the current public that it is outrageous there's no record of key contacts between senior people at the met like yourself and these journalists. there's not recorded publicly, and that should have been a priority to look at once you realized it was an issue. >> i think you'll find my hospitality is collected with the commissioner and whoever -- >> it's not on the site. >> it's not on the commissioner's site either. your name is not listed there. >> there is a lot in the mets -- >> that would be helpful.
1:59am
>> thank you, mr. chairman. on the employment of mr. wallace, did you go out to dipper for the conference? >> initially. my understanding at the time of the procurements is the options -- i asked him in quiet about that and there was three quotes, and at that stage i looked at the three quotes, and from the three quotes, mr. wallace was by far the cheapest. >> you employed mr. wallace because you needed to beef up your department? why then would you feel the need to employee mr. wallace? >> my deputy was off sick. >> nobody else, not anyone in theep